IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.

Filing 109

Administrative MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Brief Explaining Relevance of Recently issued Authority; and (Proposed) Order filed by IO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit [Proposed] Supplemental Brief and Grokster Order)(Sperlein, Dennis) (Filed on 10/22/2007) Text modified on 10/23/2007 (bw, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. Doc. 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GILL SPERLEIN (172887) THE LAW FIRM OF GILL SPERLEIN 584 Castro Street, Suite 849 San Francisco, California 94114 Telephone: (415) 487-1211 X32 Facsimile: (415) 252-7747 Attorney for Plaintiff IO GROUP, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. C-06-3926 (HRL) ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF EXPLAINING RELEVANCE OF RECENTLY ISSUED AUTHORITY; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER IO GROUP, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, vs. VEOH NETWORKS, Inc, a California Corporation, Defendant. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7-11, Plaintiff Io Group, Inc. submits this Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief presenting recent authority to the Court and explaining the relevance of that authority to this matter. Plaintiff attempted to obtain the stipulation of defense counsel, but was unable to reach them directly and immediately proceeded to file this Administrative Motion since the Court's ruling on the summary judgment motions may be imminent. Sperlein Declaration at 2. On September 4, 2007, having previously been briefed on the Parties' cross motions for summary judgment, the Court heard oral argument and accepted the matters under submission. -1- Administrative Motion For Leave To File Supplemental Brief C-06-3926 (HRL) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On October 16, 2007, the District Court for the Central District of California issued an order granting in part plaintiff's motion for permanent injunction in the case of Metro-GoldwynMayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd, No. CV 01-8541, CV 01-9923, Doc. No. 1287 (C.D. Cal. October 16, 2007). Id. at 3. Because both parties cited Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) in their respective moving papers and because the Grokster district court order further clarifies the Ninth Circuit's ruling in A&M Records v. Napster, Inc. 239 F.3d 1004, another case cited to and relied upon by both parties, plaintiff moves this Court for leave to file the short supplemental brief attached hereto as Exhibit A and along with a copy of the District Court's Order. Respectfully submitted, Dated: October 22, 2007 /s/ Gill Sperlein Gill Sperlein (CA Bar Number 172887) THE LAW FIRM OF GILL SPERLEIN Attorneys for Plaintiff, Io Group, Inc. [PROPOSED] ORDER Having read and considered Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief and any opposition thereto and finding good cause therefore, IT IS HERBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may file the attached Supplemental Brief. Dated: HONORABLE HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -2- Administrative Motion For Leave To File Supplemental Brief C-06-3926 (HRL)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?